IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial officers must maintain integrity and avoid ex-parte communications; delays in judgment delivery undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

J UDGMENT :

(Kaushik Goswami, J)

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Choudhury and Mr. R. Medhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, and Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram, appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing inter-alia the notification dated 06.09.2013, whereby the Joint Registrar (Vigilance) Gauhati High Court imposed the punishment of stoppage of 2(two) increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner is serving in the Mizoram Judicial Service, Grade-II and is presently holding the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl. In the year 2012, when the petitioner was holding the post of Senior Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunglei, Mizoram, she was placed under suspension vide notification dated 10.08.2012. Thereafter an enquiry was held against the petitioner wherein she was exonerated from all the charges, however, the Gauhati High Court, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, having disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 06.09.2013, awarded the said punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

4. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer having exonerated the petitioner of all the charges, the imposition of the punishment vide the impugned order warrants interference from this Court. He further submits that the petitioner, while holding the post of Senior Civil Judge, was also taking care of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judicial Officer-I in the District Court, and therefore, being overloaded with work, there has been delay in disposing of the cases reserved for orders and, therefore, the charge of delay in disposing of cases by the petitioner is not intentional and therefore the said charge is not established. He further submits that as regards the charge of passing judgment in Money Suit No. 40/2006 on the basis of the draft judgment furnished by the counsel has not been proved and the petitioner has also been exonerated from the said charge by the Enquiry Officer, and therefore, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty of the said charge is totally perverse. He further submits that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner’s admission that she had taken the copy of the plaint in a pen drive from the plaintiff’s counsel cannot be the basis for awarding the impugned penalty in as much as the same is not the alleged charge in the memorandum of Charge-sheet.

5. Per contra, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, for the respondents submits that there being sufficient material available before the Disciplinary Authority which clearly establishes that the petitioner had not maintained integrity and conducted herself contrary to the dignity of the office she holds, the impugned penalty order warrants no interference from this Court.

6. We have given our prudent consideration to the argument made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, perused the material available on record and have also considered the case laws cited at the bar.

7. The issue arising for determination in this writ petition is the legality and validity of the penalty order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner.

8. It is well settled that the extent of judicial review with regard to findings of Disciplinary Authority is limited and it is not the sufficiency of evidence or the decision itself but review of the decision making process only. The Constitutional Court m